Town Quixote's

[patrick jane]

This thread is peaceful now that dose if off the job

 

[Rusha]

This thread is peaceful now that dose if off the job

What job would that be? The job of intentionally sowing discord among members or purposefully hijacking as many threads as humanly possible?

 

[Town Heretic]

....some faux... feel like you have worth... sticking your pretty pictures and papers ...you're so proud...such a meltdown...mommy clears them off...

Yes, yes, everyone sees you. God knows that has to be the point. lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

....some faux... feel like you have worth... sticking your pretty pictures and papers ...you're so proud...such a meltdown...mommy clears them off...

...clueless?

 

[Town Heretic]

The Hump Day Gazette​

For some reason people were set on the Las Vegas driver being a Muslim acting out another terrorist bit...

So if a verifiable witness from the scene said she shouted Allah, you would or wouldn't believe it?

I'm pretty sure the officer in charge would know if that was the case before stating:

"This was not an act of terrorism," said Brett Zimmerman, a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department deputy chief. "We are treating this as an intentional act." Link

Then PJ said...

She was radicalized

Everyone from Portland is radicalized. lain:

While in the "Who Has the Most Threads?" thread...

Seems like just yesterday I had a hundred threads...:think:...maybe it was yesterday. lain:

And chrys began a problematic declaration...

need help with this

please don't delete

That had me remembering a far different notion...

...get over yourself
protect what you have if it is really important
put it in a blog, knight said they are safe keep certain threads active like I am doing
can you see what I am doing?

See what I did there? lain:

Leading to...

I see what you do and I call it innuendo

So a dictionary would be a good idea for whoever draws chrys in next year's Secret Santa.

First-word suggestion: petard. oly:

Picked up with rex on the Ten Commandments thread...

...The purpose of placing monuments like this at state buildings is not to recall the history or honor the memory of the fallen, but to preserve the primacy of Christian doctrine in the nation's political discourse. And it is anathema to the separation of church and state.

Two responses. First, I think the point is to honor and there's no inherent harm in it. Secondly, a monument never did more than reflect a thing. It cannot and will not empower or deny any existing group and will not and has not voided a single right.

But the nice thing about living in a secular country is that if you like the Commandments, you're free to venerate them all you want... and if you don't like them, you don't have to pay them any mind.

But a monument you can't ignore.

And in the acronym game thread...

hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia,

Gesundheit... lain:

You're supposed to be working on Sanctimony...

But don't you think enough people were working on that one as it stands?

:carryon:

Before taking a stab at it...

...Scarification

Surely churlish, absolute racists in Finland irritate caring, austere Tibetans, if occidentally...next.

Then Pure was back with...

...Well, then, you are quite blinded by your own religious biases. Because the current battle for gay rights is a direct and very loud example of the ongoing struggle to separate religious ideology from the power of the state.

Remind me again where I came down on that legally? I think that's a good example of where a reasoned examination can't find purchase for a secular advance. In fact, arguing that point put me on the hotseat with more than a few of my fellows within the Christian faith.

So why am I on a different side now? Obviously not the blinkers you'd like to slap on an impression of me and it's one reason you shouldn't be doing much of what you're attempting with me.

There are no other logical reasons for placing religious monuments in court houses but to either imply judicial advocacy of religious principals

You'll imagine my astonishment, having named more than one and both of them being reasoned and reasonable.

Or, you're as wrong as the fellow who says the only reason for Arlington is to glorify war. No other logical reason. That's how he sees it, to be sure and there's some argument that it might do just that, but it isn't and needn't be the only reason. Neither is your understanding the only possibility here.

especially when doing so clearly inflames the issue.

That Manson used a Beatles album to concoct a murder is no argument against music.

Before closing with a question...

Dear Knight:

Beats me...what do you think?





So help me, if he says he's for beating me I'm going to start a thread. lain:

Tomorrow? A new day...or year...or leap of one sort or another.

 

[Town Heretic]

The Sunday Afternoon Gazette​

So kiwi had reservations about a lack of them...

Perhaps we should wait for him [Bill Cosby] to be actually tried before passing sentence? Strange thought I know.

Only a jury can pass a sentence and opinion is the meat of this market. So...does this mean you think O.J. didn't do it?

And, of course...

wiki sez you're a retard:

Where with you it's mostly just the quality of your posts.

Talked college football with kmo...

Well this game is awful. I'm so tired of Alabama. :CRASH: bama

Sheesh. The bowl games have been horrible this weekend. The closest one was Ohio State vs Notre Dame. And Clemson vs Okla wasn't too bad.

The Alabama game...that was a good one. I forget who the other team was, but I think they were ranked.

At least before the game. lain:

Over in the morality of glamor thread/who deserves to be raped II thread...

If I walk back and forth in front of the cage of a hungry tiger carrying a raw t-bone in each hand, I'm going to bear some degree of responsibility for my stupidity if that tiger reaches its paw between the bars and snags me.

Do you know why we never charge tigers with murder?

Then...

Perhaps I am being overly optimistic when I say this, however, IMO, there are more men who would offer a coat to a [naked] woman walking in front of them as compared to those who would attack her.

I suppose I'm a little more cynical. I'd say most of them would be too busy clawing at the cell phones in their pockets, but your point is taken. :cheers:

And...

... I do not presume to think myself better than any other of His sons and daughters.

Well, that's not the currency here, but it's a poverty of riches.

Chrys dropped by the new Observations...

there is no such thing as a democrat
there are only...unionists who want to protect their jobs[,] teachers who want to protect their jobs[,] cops who want to protect their jobs

The notion that unions are inherently evil is as mistaken as the notion that the market is inherently virtuous...

blacks who want some kind of help but not jobs

Well, that's racist...or ignorant, but either way it's not much of a recruiting tool, though it might qualify users.

some who want to protect rats, etc

Everyone loves their own congressman...

Granite said to bybee...

With your discernment you should be a mod.

Well Dearie, once upon a time... I dropped the ball.

Oh no you didn't.

Some balls you just have to throw back. :thumb:

Noted a concern with aCW...

(Is zoo22 uncomfortable with me showing the 'gay' culture as well? What ever happened to 'gay' pride?).efell v Hodges and Lawrence v Texas, hello traditional marriage and the recriminalization of homosexuality in numerous States).

When you appear to spend more time thinking about gay people than gay people do it might be time to shift gears.

Tomorrow? Another dollar...maybe a day later...

 

[Town Heretic]

Came home today in a line of cars behind a guy in no particular hurry. And when I say in no particular hurry I mean that oncoming traffic began pulling to the side of the road and a State Trooper tried to give us an escort. lain:

 

[patrick jane]

Came home today in a line of cars behind a guy in no particular hurry. And when I say in no particular hurry I mean that oncoming traffic began pulling to the side of the road and a State Trooper tried to give us an escort. lain:

I'm sure I have no idea what that means.

 

[quip]

I'm sure I have no idea what that means.

linger:

 

[Nick M]

Why are so many non-technical careers labeled "technician" in some way?

 

[Town Heretic]

We watch It's a Wonderful Life every year before Christmas, usually the night before and I love the movie, but the older I get the more two things about it bother me. First, who gives Uncle Billy any amount of money to take anywhere? Yes, I understand that outside of George the pickings get fairly slim (easy to see why no one would okay the business without him) but Uncle Billy? The second thing is that at the end of the movie Old Man Potter still has all that cash. Nothing happens to him and George is still likely on the hook for paying back at least some of that money.

That's not so wonderful. :mmph:

 

[Rusha]

:yawn: Right. On. Cue.

Morning, TH. )

 

[Town Heretic]

The Lazy Saturday Morning Gazette​

Let's kick things off with my best stab at helping a newb...

IS TOL A CHURCH?

If it is then it's the first one I've ever been to where everyone is trying to crowd the front pews.

Took a shot at a one sentence movie review...

Star Wars: The Force Awakens: Field of Dreams did it better.

Then Horn sounded some familiar pro choice notes...

Rusha, no one is "pro-abortion ". They're PRO CHOICE .

Great. I'm pro-life. What's the other choice again?

People who oppose abortion are not "pro-life." They are ANTI CHOICE .

Anti the one choice that ends life. Seems fairly pro-life.

Pro FORCED birth .

Pro birth. Else it's like saying pro forced compliance with any law. Well, okay. Sure. We force people to stop at stop signs.

While in the ISIS thread...

What if ISIS tries to capture or kill presidential candidates or attack campaign even

:think: I still don't think it will be enough to turn public opinion in their favor.

Before quip said of abortion rights...

...Proscription serves little.. save its enthusiastic efforts at satisfying castigation and personal mollification.

I think that's demonstrably false as a premise. Speed limits don't slow everyone down, but they have impacted highway fatalities. Laws aren't in place merely to make us feel safer. To one extent or another they actually do make us safer.

We've done studies on restraining orders and domestic violence, by way of. While the effectiveness of them varies by study most come away with acknowledging a demonstrable decrease in repeat violence where those orders are in place (from 15, to 85% depending). That's statistically significant even at the low end.

Then Nick posted a funny mistake on the back of an Alabama fan's truck and...

I can't make fun of Ohio and not poke Alabama. Then again, this isn't my idea. I didn't put it on my vehicle.

Click the twitter feed.

View attachment 21318

...that's the problem with fans who only drove by the university on their way to a bar or a child support hearing.

Had a suggestion in the defunct Glamour thread...

...if you're looking for life-altering advice from strangers on an internet board...you might need to widen your real-life social circles.

While back in the NFL...

Peyton took roids

Peyton shot Tupac.

Shakir ? For sure ? No evidence

Exactly.

And quip returned with...

......one must at least ask whether a - marginal - reduction in abortion deaths can be qualitatively comparable to the revocation of extant personal rights and liberties;

Marginal? A little over a million souls last year.

...agree studies would need to be done prior to legislation. Though, this begs further inquiry as to the precise factors involved in the choice to abort. Factors of wealth, status, entitlement ..etc. could conceivably have as much if not more bearing on the decision to abort than education.

Education's impact is mostly on the preventative end of things. I was looking at a study done in 2004.

The principle reasons, by percent, for abortion were given as: 25% said they weren't ready. 23% said they couldn't afford a child. 19% said they already had all the children they wanted. 8% said they didn't want to be single parents. 7% said they were too young. 4% said it would interfere with their education and career plans. 4% cited health problems. 3% cited fetal health problems. .5% didn't want others to know they were pregnant. .5% said their partner or husband wanted the abortion. .5% said their parents wanted the abortion. .5% cited rape or incest as the reason.

Apply the least of them to the million plus lives lost to abortion last year and the number is staggering. Or would be to most if you aged them and put them in a schoolyard.

The President himself would weep over the loss. And he should.

Before elsewhere someone asked...

Are most people Christian on this site?

Yes, some from the inside out and some from the outside in.

Tomorrow? The shadow... :idunno:

 

[Arthur Brain]

:yawn: Right. On. Cue.

Morning, TH. )

Well, a miscue anyway...

 

[Town Heretic]

The Roll Tide Championship Gazette​

So the new guy said in the new guy's thread...:think:

Thanks for the directions!

One thing you can absolutely count on around here is finding someone eager to tell you where to go. :thumb:

Continued with quip, who objected to my illustration...

....this heart-tugging narrative serves no more purpose than the artful mode of emotive manipulation it's predicated upon.

Rather, I think it's informative to take a thing usually presented in a sanitized, removed fashion and mostly addressed in terms of examining a woman's right to control of her body and putting it in another light, one illustrative of another human cost.

Some weep for children slaughtered in a schoolyard while supporting a principle that takes the life of hundreds of thousands of children each year. There's a disconnect in it that should be troubling.

Elsewhere, aCW essentially argued that only homosexuals can truly speak to homosexuality...well, if you think about what he's saying...and isn't it time someone did that?

I guess I didn't get the memo that stated those who aren't even sure that God exists are now experts on Christianity.

How many "Catholics, Calvinists aren't/this or that person isn't dogmatic enough to qualify threads and posts have you run into here over the years?

It's more popular than night baseball. lain:

Of the Green Bay victory over Washington, said...

The Pack Attack - Aaron Rodgers looks like he is in form tonight

...not to dampen the enthusiasm of Green Bay fans, but they blew up the 25th ranked team against the pass.

Then quip returned with...

..."Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection."

In the spirit of Justice Blackmun's court delivered statement above, our goal should likewise include an objective rational discourse on the matter.

I'd answer that one can be impassioned and wholly rational, that the larger issues of our day have always been emotionally charged, mostly because the balance weighed human right and suffering. I'd ask Mr. Blackmun if he found the repudiation of slavery, one integrally joined to human feeling, irrational or suspect for its tie to value and emotion.

Leave the impassioned pleas to the politician's soap-box and ideologues. One can't approach objective exchange with interjected (unqualifed) images of mewling babies and axe murdering villains.

[I leave that without my answer because I wanted to note what followed the protest]

One cannot hold such a requirement of enslavement upon another via either chains or umbilical cord.

lain:

A woman does indeed hold the right to presume permission preceding any trespass upon her body.

The unborn being a foreseeable invitee in nearly every instance can hardly be charged with trespass.

To the point, she's a just, moral right to deny permission to any existing fetus.

Why should her right trump the rights of the unborn where her assumption of risk has led to it? And how, reasonably, can the assertion of a diluted liberty (see: ingestion, suicide, etc.) trump the right to life itself?

...Or, I have right. You take that right from me along my chain of being, reduce and negate it for no better reason than it suits your notion of an otherwise diluted liberty on the part of the mother. I say that is an offense to reason and right.

A wilful denial of existing contingencies is simply an emblematic condition of an inflexible ideology...no use in arguing to the contrary.

A consideration wherein a thing is found insufficient shouldn't be conflated with a willful denial of its existence. And any answer is inflexible if true. The knowledge of a thing precludes the argument against it, by way of.

Then kmo dropped by to put the icing on Alabama's championship cake...

I was too tired to stay up for the end so I only saw the final now. Boo!! Is all I have to say.

Silly kmo, that's not how you spell "bow".

And chrys brought a cherry...

time for the ncaa to investigate alabama

Sure. Start with our trophy case. :reals:

Meanwhile aCW was rallying the troops...sort of...

Can I count on you to support Ted Cruz?

I've always encouraged people to become informed when it comes to politics, and those that refuse to I highly encourage them to stay home on election day.

After corresponding with you, I highly encourage you do the latter (people who believe in God will win this culture war without you).

Because the last time we gave the Republicans two full terms in office it really changed things. :rip:

Then Granite said...

...what is the Canadian up to lately? Lying more than usual? Or laying on a thick coat of smarm somewhere?

I once described him as Pat Buchanan, but without all the charm. lain:

The best thing about Cruz?

He's exactly what you think he is...which is also the worst thing about Cruz, comes to it. :think:

Tomorrow? Homework. :mmph:

 

[Town Heretic]

The End Times Gazette​

Had a couple of parting words with quip on abortion and right...

...Would you accept the forced abnegation of your liberties in lieu of a declared moral demand consisting of an encroachment upon your body for the sole purpose of sustaining an otherwise anonymous life? If not, wherefore such a special pleaded demand set upon a pregnant woman?

I'm not offering a special pleading. No idea why you'd suggest it. The issue is, again, whether or not a woman, who willfully engaged in intercourse, the foreseeable potential result of which is the creation of another life, should be entitled to end that life absent a direct medical necessity that would, in essence, constitute self-defense.

How did I put it...Why should her right trump the rights of the unborn where her assumption of risk has led to it? And how, reasonably, can the assertion of a diluted liberty (see: ingestion, suicide, etc.) trump the right to life itself?

....all the same, pulling tiger's teeth is generally a futile endeavor.

Many a man begins with that notion, but the proof is in the pliers. And sometimes in the tiger.

Pointed out a problem with bumper sticker theology in Cruc's latest ecumenical effort...

"Heresy: that special moment when you have greater spiritual insight than the apostles, disciples, apostolic fathers, the church and the magisterium because you have a Bible that they wrote, copied and gave to you"

Comment: utilizing that logic we should still have slavery within the borders of our compact.

While a returning favorite of yore opined...

I don't know why I ever changed that [user] name.

:think: Because it didn't come with a guitar solo?

Leading to a heckle from the cheap seats...

Neither did you and it would have been a better intro...

lain:

Well, having seen so many around here blowing their horns I was a little put off on the notion of transforming more of TOL into an orchestral pit.

Also, that's not how you spell bitter...but it is how you illustrate it.

Suggested Jd reflect a bit more on a premise...

Belief in god, especially the Biblical god is not rational,

That's not a rational statement. In fact, many of the finest minds man has produced have done just that, read and been intimately familiar with that book without coming to your conclusion...now it might be that you're that far advanced beyond their ability and blinders. Or it might be that you have your own.

As between to two propositions, which is the most likely?

While back in Cruc's thread "The Arrogance & Blindness of the Protestant Heresy"...

...are you going to report us?

I haven't done much of that in years. No, but I may have to revive my one-off awards thread just to present the Letsargue B. Demilestone lifetime achievement award for humblest poster by volume.

It could be a banner year for Catholicism around here if I do.

Before asking...

...cruciform does seem to be getting to many here
do you wonder why?

Would you wonder why a guy showing up to an MLK day parade waving a Confederate battle flag might "get to" a few participants? Because if so that might be your answer right there. lain:

So Pure chimed in about my answer to Jd...

Oooooh! Magic!

Are you modeling that maturity you were talking to Jd about?

"Don't believe the facts of reality, trust in the magic idol!"

Because if you are you might need to work on it a bit more.

Sorry, but this is what I see you saying, here.

That makes two of us then.

And if anything discredits Jesus

Which nothing actually does, so...

it's the insistence that he preached this kind of forced dishonesty masquerading as faith.

Dishonesty is knowing one thing to be true (something that might boggle a relativist, but work with me a bit for the sake of argument) and stating something contrary to it. Nothing in this would fit that bill, however it makes you feel...At the heart of every approach to God and existence is the miraculous.

As a former card-carrying, slightly bemused atheist, let me dissuade you from the notion that holding on to only that miracle in foundation makes you appear more reasonable than the fellow who believes God rained manna or wrote the law into stone tablets, etc. There's a premise, supernatural in origin, at the heart of any belief in God. If you're in that group then the difference between you and the guy who believes Jesus rode a dinosaur might feel like a great gulf to you, but the other fellow is only smiling through gritted teeth.

And Pure returned with...

...there are still lots of people who don't think they've already got all the right answers. And they can still hear, see, and learn.

I don't know many people who think they have all the right answers, though I know a great many people who think the answers they have are right.

I think you're defining theism by your own, and that's too narrow for the reality of it.

I'd say if you have a different contextual line than God for the difference between a theistic perspective and an atheistic perspective you have a mistaken notion of at least one of those.

I consider it part of a religious story, intended to convey an idea, and a message.

A message from whom? And you're right back to the root of the thing.

...the insistence on believing in [the miraculous] is unnecessary, irrational, and encourages dishonesty.

No truth will ever encourage dishonesty though dishonest men will use nearly any truth to advance less virtuous schemes and notions. Just so, many a corrupt politician has been sworn in with a Bible.

Tomorrow? The Oscars, Trad plays a word game and things get topical. :shocked:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Saturday Morning Gazette​

Over in the Windows 10 thread STP was being adamant... does anyone remember Adam Ant? "Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?" Anyway...

Sticking with Windows 95.

Didn't think you could run that on a Commodore. lain:

Trad followed my recitation of the creed with...

You don't belong to an apostolic church.

I understand the Catholic (and Church of Christ) claim to a more exclusive relationship, but in the words of Southern mothers for generations, the only charitable response to that sort of statement is, "Bless your heart."

And after I supplied a link to explain the Presbyterian use of apostolic...

I believe I understand the distinction that the article makes between "apostolic succession" and "apostolicity," but I don't think that it really "gets at" my objection.

It isn't aimed at it, because you can't be, aren't actually interested in being satisfied by anything short of a dogmatic capitulation to your church. But it does answer on what is meant by what we recite.

What does "apostolic" mean in the Apostle's creed that you cited?

As used and considered by Presbyterians? I just showed you. The rest approaches the sort of pointless squabbling I was talking to Pure about.

Cruc picked another word to quibble, but ultimately sounded a surprisingly irenic note that felt like a fine place for an ecumenical parting...

...You're using the word "catholic" in a decidedly ahistorical manner, but I get your basic meaning, and agree with it. That's why the Catholic Church considers properly-baptized Protestants to be fellow Christians.

As they should. And why I consider my Catholic brothers and sisters to be exactly that, our differences notwithstanding.

So, of course....

Yet this fails to address the Truth Question, that is, whether or not Jesus Christ founded a Church in which the fullness of the Christian faith resides, and which He desires for all believers to enter in faithfulness to Him... I would contend that Christ's one historic Church is the Catholic Church and, if true, must conclude that, for example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is not actually a "church" at all

I don't feel similarly compelled though I know that many Protestants feel as strongly about it, if in a different fashion.

---after all, Christ founded only ONE Church (Mt. 16:18; cf. 1 Tim. 3:15)---but rather merely a man-made sect whose teachings carry no binding apostolic authority whatsoever, but can never be more than the corrupt traditions of men.

I'd remind you that it is the Catholic church, not the Protestant line, that holds traditions as a rival to scriptural authority. On the founding point, supra and by way of reference to arguments we're both likely more than a little familiar with and are fruitless to pursue again.

In one of the movie threads, Steko may or may not have been confused...

I watched "Clowns From Outer Space" the other night.
It was awful.

Are you sure that you didn't just tune into C-Span again by accident? :idunno:

And...

:think: Hmm, you may be right!

Same thing happened to me. I thought I was watching "Monkey Planet" for about a week there.

While back in Cruc's thread Trad was coming to grips with the fact that the meaning of apostolic when penned by Catholics prior to there being Protestants to differ wasn't going to actually control anything...

You're not a fan of constitutional constructionism, are you? lain:

I'm no fan of slavery and I've always thought women should be allowed to vote. You?

While chrys came dragging his petard behind him...

see
you are looking for something that isn't there

A reasonable response?

some of us bypass innuendo/I had only one point to make/this is where you talk about nfl
nothing more

No, everyone knows you can do that in a thread about the NFL. So you were actually engaging in attempting another point beneath the obvious one...there's a word for that somewhere.

And thanks for playing. :cheers:

Responded to Ben's latest stab at Christendom...

Jamie, the only other option to deny that Jesus was not married is to acknowledge that he was a liar.

No, that's not true, Ben.

Spoiler

I was curious about that point myself. I found some discussion on the point in the Jewish stack exchange that seems helpful.


מי שחשקה נפשו בתורה תמיד ושגה בה כבן עזאי ונדבק בה כל ימיו ולא נשא אשה אין בידו עון והוא שלא יהיה יצרו מתגבר עליו, אבל אם היה יצרו מתגבר עליו חייב לישא אשה ואפילו היו לו בנים שמא יבוא לידי הרהור.‏ Rambam Hilchot Ishut 15:3

The translation given was that a man who desired to study Torah and who can control his passions does no wrong, but else should marry.

Another response:

"In response to this part of your inquiry, I can answer you that, by the time of Jesus, the title "rabbi" and correlates were not exclusively used in a formal manner as it is today in judaism in reference to authorized clergy. On the contrary, it was sometimes used in reference to non-clergy and non-pharisaic individuals who had acquired a religious following as a means of attributing honor. Also, not all recognized pharisaic authorities (that time's rabbis) had the rabbi title attached to their names, as was, for example, the case for Hillel The Elder. Later rabbinc authorities also don't always have the title, as is the case for the Sage Shmuel, and many others.

All this to say that: even if it could be proven that in rabbinic judaism historically one would have to be married to be a recognized rabbi, it does not follow from it that Jesus was married just because he was called a rabbi, since the title was not exclusively used in this formal manner by that time, being some times attributed to religious leaderships independent of formal training, recognition and, needless to say, any other requirement for official ordination as a rabbi."​

There was a good bit of interesting discussion like that and this:

"It was certainly very common, but I can't find a requirement in the talmud (which was written in the few hundred years around your target timeframe), and I find one talmudic counter-example:

On Kiddushin 71b R. Yehudah of Pumbeditha is asked why his son, R. Yitzchak, is not yet married (and is an adult).

Kiddushin 82a does argue that an unmarried man cannot teach children, but this appears to be a concern about the appearance of impropriety, not a question about his ability or knowledge."​

But what is it to you? I think it's clear from your larger efforts that your aim is simply to discredit and cast doubt, which is true of all those who oppose Jesus. But you won't have any better luck with his reputation than people of your mindset had with his body.

Do you remember what he said in Matthew 5:17-19? That he had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it down to the letter.

Barnes has it:

"to complete the design; to fill up what was predicted; to accomplish what was intended in them. The word "fulfill" also means sometimes "to teach" or "to inculcate," Colossians 1:25. The law of Moses contained many sacrifices and rites which were designed to shadow forth the Messiah. See the notes at Hebrews 9. These were fulfilled when he came and offered himself a sacrifice to God..."​

Gills Exposition:

"I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. By "the law" is meant the moral law, as appears from the whole discourse following: this he came not to "destroy", or loose men's obligations to, as a rule of walk and conversation, but "to fulfil" it; which he did doctrinally, by setting it forth fully, and giving the true sense and meaning of it; and practically, by yielding perfect obedience to all its commands, whereby he became "the end", the fulfilling end of it."​

And, mind you, that's a commandment upon the man to make the first move by proposing. If Jesus came to fulfill the Law down to the letter, do you prefer that he was a liar rather than a married man? I am serious, lady! What do you say?

I say you're arguing God's word with God, but don't understand either.

Defended Brady on a note while getting one in on Dan...

You're right, that was a bit of troll on my part. His arm does look very good, and has for a while now. I remember watching a QB contest he participated in after his first SB, and he out-threw all the other competitors at the time. It shocked me to see him air out something like a 70-yard pass. At the time, his forte was the old "dink-n-dunk."

More what he had to work with. When he had Moss he could put it downfield in a hurry. And the arm is, as Marino once noted, the last thing to go...though actually it's the mind, but Marino had no way to know that.

Said happy-happy to rm...

Thank You all for the awesome birthday wishes, I love you all and was touched by your well wishes. :thumb: This is a great group here at TOL, even the ones that I disagree with...:chuckle:

You're welcome and all, but that's just not how you spell "especially". :nono: Must have had a hand spasm.

Over in the Oscars thread...

Taken from IMDb...I feel the metascoire is less influenced by the arty factor than it is when it comes to Oscar winners. As well, the general vote from younger people seems to move even farther away from the arty factor.

Here's the curious bit. Both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb agree on the best five (the old limit for nominations). I'll list the top five with IMDb first and RT beside it:

1. Spotlight/Brooklyn
2. Fury Road/Spotlight
3. Brooklyn/Fury Road
4. Room/Room
5. Creed/Creed

Creed is fifth and unnominated. The Revenant, by contrast, fell to 10th on IMBd and 11th out of the twelve films on RT and manages a nod.

And I'll put a bow on today's outing with this bit of repartee...

:yawn: Post #144

Post #144 was already answered in Post #149.

And they said debate was a dying art. lain:

Is it just me or has the whole thing turned into footnotes?

Tomorrow? Knobs, Oscars and Whoopi...or do I repeat myself? :think:

 

[Town Heretic]

moved.

 

[glorydaz]

I knew I'd have a starring role in Town's most recent whine fest. So nice to see he's predictable....if nothing else. :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

I knew I'd have a starring role in Town's most recent whine fest. So nice to see he's predictable....if nothing else. :chuckle:

Like no one saw you arriving on its heels to illustrate how amused and unconcerned you are...and how devoted to the thread.